Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2012/February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



February 24[edit]

{{ChesapeakeVA-geo-stub}}/Cat:City of Chesapeake, Virginia geography stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was upmerge all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Upmerge-only 9 entries. — Train2104 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I've been cleaning up Cat:Virginia geography stubs, which is listed under Cat:Overpopulated stub categories. When I started the other day, Virginia geography stubs had over 800 pages. Now it's down to 213. Several of subcategories, which already had stubs, have less than 10 pages. If we upmerge all those, it makes the category overpopulated. I've seen this in other categories elsewhere: one party deems a category "polluted" or "overpopulated," while another party says the subcategories are too small to warrant their own sub. Not sure what the solution is, but it does seem contradictory. Thoughts? Cheers. Encycloshave (talk) 13:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category, upmerge template. Nowhere near threshold, and a clutch of underpopulated categories is not any easier to navigate than an overpopulated category. SeveroTC 16:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how a "clutch of underpopulated categories" is difficult to navigate. Say we delete all the underpopulated categories in Virginia geography stubs and bring the parent category to over 800 pages. Say I'm looking for stubs related to Chesapeake, Virginia. With 9 related pages, how is it easier to sift through 800 plus links? Wouldn't it be easier to locate the subcategory titled City of Chesapeake? What am I missing? I understand the threshold and that it is a guideline, which is how I understood Wikipedia worked. Deleting a subcategory in very large parent category, simply for the sake of adhering to rule seems contradict one of the pillars of Wikipedia. If in fact we delete this and the rest of the "underpopulated" categories in Virginia geography stubs, then it would make sense to remove {{verylargestub}}. After all, to remove these subcategories would be to prohibit the recommendation, "Subcategories may be helpful for browsing."
Bear in mind, I didn't create these stubs. I merely came across the category by following "See Category:Overpopulated stub categories ({{verylargestub}})" on the Stub sorting project's To do page. Someone on Wikipedia has deemed certain categories as overpopulated, but perhaps the left hand and right hand should get together and see what is more important: reducing large categories or maintaining unrealistically high thresholds. Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the 60 threshold is troublesome for overpopulated categories for which the natural next split is into many smaller divisions, but I think under 10 is getting a bit extreme. If we did that everywhere the stub system would become both too hard to maintain and pretty useless.
Compromise: There are 18 of the 58 subcategories of Cat:Virginia geography stubs which have less than 10 items, totalling about 100 articles. Upmerging these 18 would only take the parent back to about 300, which is not considered oversized. Most other undersized subcats have 30+, and while still under the usual threshold, are at least useful navigationally and may yet grow given time. --Qetuth (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that would be a good compromise, though we might want to hold off on that. As I pointed, a few region-oriented subcategories have been created. I think that would make it easier, assuming the reader/editor knows which area of the state a given county is located. We could provide a map such as the one provide in Cat:Northern Virginia geography stubs, or this one File:Virginia counties and cities.gif. The only snag with regions is how do decide the divisions. The existing regional subcategories follow different systems: Smithsonian definitions and Cat:Regions of Virginia, which is is based on various independent sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Encycloshave (talk • contribs) 14:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this map (found in the Northern Viriginia geography category), I proposed regional categories, completing the split that had been previously started. Please share your comments on the Proposal page as to whether this split is acceptable. If the proposal is accepted, these tiny categories would no longer be needed. Templates could upmerge to the regions with no threat (at this time) of overpopulating the region categories. Dawynn (talk) 12:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have usable regional subdivisions, we need no longer fear flooding the parent categories by upmerging. I would suggest deleting all of these categories with less than 30 tagged articles:
Dawynn (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


February 20[edit]

Cat:Buddhist temple stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 4#Category:Buddhist temple stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:57, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


While trying to fill this category, I ran across Cat:Buddhist monastery stubs, which defines itself as being for monasteries, temples and nunneries. And the monastery category is not overflowing. Is it worth differentiating between monasteries / nunneries and temples? Propose deleting the temple category for now. I could see keeping the temple tag if its worth distinguishing, but upmerge until the tag is used on more than 60 articles. My fear here is that many of the buildings will serve as both a temple and monastery. Not sure its worth the resulting amount of double-tagging. Dawynn (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Olympic gliders of Romania[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was closed. The category was re-nominated at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 29. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This category has been created for one person at one event. Gliders are aircraft not people. The 1936 Olympics had gliding as a demonstration sport and one Romanian took part. A category of one. JMcC (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 18[edit]

Cat:Areceae stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn


Tribes are not as well defined in Wikipedia, so difficult for non-experts to tell what belongs here. For now, less than 30 articles tagged. Propose delete with no prejudice against recreation once sufficient articles tagged. Dawynn (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't define tribes, scientists do. Palm biology is a well-studied field, with numerous available publications. Why would non-experts need to know what belongs there? Are you proposing to eliminate the subcategory and put them all back in Category:Palm stubs with over 300 stub articles? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because, let's face it, the bulk of the work in the stub sorting project is performed by non-experts in the various subjects. If articles have been written properly indicating what genera are in the various tribes, even non-experts can help in sorting the various articles. And yes, I am proposing that the subcategory (not the template) be eliminated and the articles upmerged back into the parent category. Such a move eliminates an undersized category (Cat:Areceae stubs)) without overloading the parent category (Cat:Palm stubs). Dawynn (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aah! I think I found a big help: List of Arecaceae genera Dawynn (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There may still be other articles to tag, but this category is now fair-sized. Removing this deletion request. Dawynn (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

February 17[edit]

Rename of India district templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep Kanpur, rename KanpurDehat


Proposing rename of two district-level templates for Kanpur division, Uttar Pradesh, India:

  1. {{Kanpur-geo-stub}} → {{KanpurNagar-geo-stub}}
  2. {{KanpurDehat-geo-stub}} → {{RamabaiNagar-geo-stub}}

See Kanpur district and Ramabai Nagar district for more information. I'm OK with leaving the existing templates as redirects. Dawynn (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.



February 12[edit]

Regional US geography parent categories[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was keep


While I appreciate why these were originally created, now that each state (and D.C.!) have their own individual categories, I think we can do away with the regional categories. Propose deleting the following:

Propose that the individual state and district categories would then be alphabetized under Cat:United States geography stubs. Other categories should not need to be brought to the higher level, because they're already covered. For instance Cat:Western United States building and structure stubs‎ is already a child of Cat:United States building and structure stubs‎. Dawynn (talk) 11:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the category that I checked this Stfd was not advertised. Anyway these regions appear to be "official" subdivisions/groupings of the US so I think it would make sense to keep them from at least a local perspective. As an outsider I would not know into which group to place for example Minesota, but hey thats only one click away to find out. Agathoclea (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

India Films[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was not a stub category discussion


Is it necessary to have:

Bollywood films
Bengali films
Kannada films
Malayalam films
Tamil films
Telugu films

and these 6 categoies in each year yet? That has to be 100++ categories at least. :- ) DCS 04:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was way off. Discounting Bollywood films, the 5 languages contain 4712 categories in film. :- ) DCS 04:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're barking up the wrong tree. We don't have that many India film stub categories. However, I do see Wikipedia has several main categories, as you say. Please direct your question to the India cinema task force. Dawynn (talk) 16:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx :- ) DCS 19:59, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 11[edit]

Cat:Faizabad division‎[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn


This has been marked, via appropriate templates, as a stub category. And there are no permanent categories for the divisions of Uttar Pradesh, so I'm willing to accept that it was intended as a stub category. With it being relatively new, I'm even willing to give it a chance to be filled in. But I must insist on a name change. Propose change to Cat:Faizabad division geography stubs. Appropriate templates will be requested at the proposal page. Dawynn (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing to turn this into a proper perm cat. Stub templates have been requested. Stub category may be requested when sufficient articles tagged with district-level templates. Dawynn (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


February 7[edit]

Cat:Korean company stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Korean company stubs have now been retagged with either North Korea or South Korea tags. Propose deleting the following:

Move Cat:South Korean company stubs and upmerge {{NorthKorea-company-stub}} to Cat:Asian company stubs. Dawynn (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Qetuth (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 5[edit]

{{Aeroengine-term-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Unused (currently) template. No perm category (Category:Aircraft engines is categorised by types of engines). Deleting this would be a step towards deleting Category:Aviation terminology which has had hundreds of articles incorrectly placed in it - often without the articles being placed in the appropriate categories (Wikipedia categories are usually based on the subject of the article, not whether the article title is terminology, acronym, name etc). DexDor (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I've removed terminology cats from 100s of aviation articles (e.g. see [1]). The Aeroengine-term-stub template is below Template:Vocab-stub in the hierarchy, and that is about the subject of Vocabulary (linguistics). DexDor (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete {{Aeroengine-term-stub}}, {{Aviation-term-stub}} and Cat:Aviation terminology stubs. Both templates are empty and neither they nor their category seem to serve any useful purpose. (The cat is listed separately on Jan 10th) --Qetuth (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.


February 2[edit]

Cat:United Kingdom comics stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Transferred from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy: Category:United Kingdom comics stubs to Category:British comics stubs – C2C: all other subcategories in Category:British comics use this naming convention. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Dawynn (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{HongKong-poli-bio-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Don't think I've seen anything like this before. Seems to be excessively splitting hairs. Only two people tagged here. I would think these could either be tagged as {{HongKong-politician-stub}} or {{HongKong-gov-bio-stub}}. Am I missing something? Propose to delete this template, and retag articles. Dawynn (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the instruction given at Cat:Hong Kong politician stubs "For people who held non-elected and non-ministerial political offices, such as appointed members of the Legislative Council" I suppose the distinction being made is that they aren't technically politicians? I would think {{HongKong-gov-bio-stub}} covers this perfectly well, and is itself undersized, so no need to subdivide it to this extent. Support --Qetuth (talk) 02:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Rename history stub templates[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Propose rename of the following:

Dawynn (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support for standardisation --Qetuth (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Oklahoma-government-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Propose rename to {{Oklahoma-gov-stub}}. Standardization. Dawynn (talk) 13:52, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Qetuth (talk) 02:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{Columbus-ga-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Propose rename to {{ColumbusGA-stub}}. Dawynn (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Should {{Atlanta-stub}} also become {{AtlantaGA-stub}} for standardisation? --Qetuth (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

{{SriLanka-food-stub}}[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Propose rename to {{SriLanka-cuisine-stub}}, for standardization with other countries. Dawynn (talk) 13:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Cat:Korean football club stubs[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure why this even exists. There is no template for Korea, so clubs can only be tagged with the two individual country tags. And South Korea already has its own category. Propose deleting the Korea category, and moving the North Korea template and South Korea category directly under the Asia parent. Dawynn (talk) 11:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Qetuth (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

February 1[edit]

Unused template redirects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the stub template and/or category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was deleted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Various templates without a hyphen before bio were moved to -bio in May 2006, but because there was not a listing of such templates at the discussion they fell through the gaps when all template redirects were included at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Template redirects#Stub templates. I've done some searching for them, added some, and found some redirects were not used. I propose the deletion of these unused template redirects:

SeveroTC 09:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All now deleted. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the template's or category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion/Log/2012/February&oldid=477883227"